a Cali rep said that they would ban carry all together if this bill passes so that no one can do it. but i suppose the direct infringement on a constitutional right should be more than enough of a signal to start taking direct action against the politicians in office.

From what I understand, it already passed the senate.

a Cali rep said that they would ban carry all together if this bill passes so that no one can do it. but i suppose the direct infringement on a constitutional right should be more than enough of a signal to start taking direct action against the politicians in office.

They wouldn't do it.. They are full of it.  There are PLENTY of people in CA who like guns.

From what I understand, it already passed the senate.

Just the house, unless you have a source I missed. We wait for some procedural slight of hand to get this through the Senate.

Quote from: Aegis808 on November 17, 2011, 06:18:01 AM

a Cali rep said that they would ban carry all together if this bill passes so that no one can do it. but i suppose the direct infringement on a constitutional right should be more than enough of a signal to start taking direct action against the politicians in office.

They wouldn't do it.. They are full of it.  There are PLENTY of people in CA who like guns.

but would we do if the politicians in HI attempted to do the same?

but would we do if the politicians in HI attempted to do the same?

That isn't a winning proposition for the State. It's probably the least of my concerns. If it did happen, what would be different for us? We already have a ban.

Bans on self-defense are much easier to argue against, then selective restrictions.

Quote from: 808shooter on November 16, 2011, 09:17:18 PM

I also read that it prohibits citizens getting a CCW in another state to carry in theirs.  I may be wrong?

The way it sounds to me, only people visiting can carry.  If you had your cc for vegas or texas, you still wouldnt be able to cause your a resident and not "visiting"
Thats my translation of it

This is correct.  If the state of residence does NOT issue, this measure has specific language to mitigate any circumvention of that states policy.  For example, you live in State X that doesn not issue.  Next door is State W or Y and they do.  You cannot get a permit from the neighboring state and be legal tocarry in your state of residence because State X does not issue.  You would be in violation of the State Law as well as the Federal Reciprocity.

Even if this does nothing at all to directly affect Hawaii's residents, it's a step in the right direction.  Aside from the arguments locals will be able to make about non-resident military and tourists carrying, it serves to underscore the fact that Hawaii is not on the same page as the rest of the country.  For the sovereignty advocates, I suppose that's good news.  The rest of the state, on the other hand, is eventually going to notice that Hawaii is turning into a bastard stepchild as the rest of the country moves to a stronger 2A stance, and they're not going to like it. Especially the state lawmakers with their eyes set on moving up to Washington DC!  The state legislators are the ones we need to change their minds about concealed carry.  The better things get for gun owners on the mainland, the easier it is for us out here to say, "Why are you being so backward?  Gun control is sooooo 1960's, and is a proven failure.  Get with the times, dog!"

Hawaii calls itself a shall issue state.

As such, I believe something needs to change, one way or the other.

Either they'll honor the federal law which means they'll start issuing permits, or they'll pass additional legislation meaning they won't issue permits (as usual) as a matter of law.

Hawaii calls itself a shall issue state.

I knew what you meant, but Hawaii calls itself a "may issue" state. As in they "may issue" you a permit or not. In our case "not" is the consistant answer making it an effective ban.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/CarryL

the house debate on the national carry bill. it's a bit long but if you got the time it's pretty nice to watch.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/CarryL

the house debate on the national carry bill. it's a bit long but if you got the time it's pretty nice to watch.

Don't have time right now, but did you see C-Span's description of the video? 

Committee members considered rules for House floor debate on H.S. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. The legislation would allow lawful gun owners to carry concealed guns in other states, even if those other states prohibit concealed arms.

The bill does nothing of the sort!

Quote from: Aegis808 on November 17, 2011, 10:48:46 AM

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/CarryL

the house debate on the national carry bill. it's a bit long but if you got the time it's pretty nice to watch.

Don't have time right now, but did you see C-Span's description of the video? 

Quote

Committee members considered rules for House floor debate on H.S. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. The legislation would allow lawful gun owners to carry concealed guns in other states, even if those other states prohibit concealed arms.

The bill does nothing of the sort!

the long story short of it was that the usual OMG EVERYONE HAS GUNS NOW!!! argument and for the children bs happened. everytime someone came out to speak against it they never cited facts and strawmanned their way into everything. one of the reps even tried to bring in the Gabrielle Giffords incident as some how being related to people with CCWs. One of the shinning moments however came from a supporter stating that if the opposition is against things that can kill people then we should even ban butter knives.

So does anyone know how long before the senate hears and decides on it

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/CarryL

the house debate on the national carry bill. it's a bit long but if you got the time it's pretty nice to watch.

At around 1hr and 14min in I actually saw eye candy.   

found more info. about this....

The bill is pretty much gutted by all the amendments and red tape added on to it: Amendment No. 1—Rep. Woodall (R-GA): This amendment would protect the rights of states that already have reciprocal agreements in place for the concealed carry of firearms to continue enforcing those preexisting agreements.

Amendment No. 2—Rep. McCarthy (D-NY): This amendment would specify that the legislation can only go into effect in states that have passed legislation enacting the bill.

Amendment No. 3—Rep. Hastings (D-FL): This amendment would exempt states from issuing a carry permit on the basis of state reciprocity which do not require individuals to apply for and complete a carry permit application in person.

Amendment No. 4—Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a state to create a comprehensive database to contain all permits and licenses issued by the state for carrying a concealed weapon and make this comprehensive database available to law enforcement officers from all states 24 hours a day.

Amendment No. 5—Rep. Conyers (D-MI): This amendment would effectively gut the bill by “preserving” state laws with respect to eligibility for concealed-carry.

Amendment No. 6—Rep. Johnson (D-GA): This amendment would require the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a state to be subject to “any law of the state that limits the eligibility to possess or carry a concealed handgun to persons who have received firearm safety training that includes a live-fire exercise.’’

Amendment No. 7—Rep. Cohen (D-TN): This amendment would exempt from the bill any state law requiring a person to be at least 21 years of age to possess or carry a concealed handgun.

Amendment No. 8—Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a person intending to carry or possess a concealed handgun in a state to inform that state’s law enforcement of their intentions at least 24 hours prior.

Amendment No. 9—Rep. Cicilline (D-RI): This amendment would limit the bill from taking effect in a state until the State Attorney General, head of the State police, and the Secretary of State have jointly certified that the other state’s carry laws are substantially similar to its own licensing or permitting requirements.

Amendment No. 10—Rep. Reichert (R-WA): This amendment would require a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study on the ability of state and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearms permits.

and more stuff...

Not only was H.R. 822 -- the Trojan horse gun control bill -- passed out of the House of Representatives this evening, it was passed with an amendment that would open the door to federal biometric requirements for concealed firearms permits and a federally-administered database of all permit holders.

Only 7 Republican Members of Congress stood against federal overreach in the concealed carry process by opposing this bill (you can see how your Representative voted here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll852.xml).

The bill was amended this afternoon by ostensibly “pro-gun” Republicans to require a study be done on the ability of law enforcement officers to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearm permits.

You and I both know what this means. A year from now, the study will come back stating that the only way to “verify” out-of-state permits is through federally-mandated biometric requirements for concealed firearm permits and Congress “must” create a nationally administered database of all concealed weapon permit holders.

One of my biggest concerns about this bill -- the lists of gun owners a permit process creates -- should send shivers down your spine: Imagine Eric Holder and the BATFE with a national database of concealed carry permit holders.

It’s bad enough to have those lists exist at a state level. Once Eric Holder and his cronies find a way to request that list from a state, they’ll do it -- all the in the name of “implementing H.R. 822.”

The legislation now moves to the Harry Reid-run Senate, where companion legislation is expected to be introduced in the coming days. I have no doubt that the anti-gunners in the Senate will use this as an opportunity to make H.R. 822 even worse.

What troubles me most about this battle is the institutional gun lobby has been leading the charge for this legislation. In fact, they’ve been brow-beating Members of Congress who dare to question the consequences of passing such a broad, overreaching piece of legislation.

Republican Congressman Justin Amash (MI-03) fought back against the institutional gun lobby for its support of H.R. 822:
"It's remarkably bold of the National Rifle Association to send out false and misleading messages regarding H R 822, an unconstitutional bill that improperly applies the Commerce Clause to concealed carry licensing. I would support legislation that gets the federal government out of the way of states that want to recognize other states' concealed carry permits. In contrast, H R 822 will hurt gun rights by conceding broad new authority to the federal government to override state sovereignty.

Gun rights advocates have fought hard to prevent liberal abuse of the Commerce Clause that would restrict gun rights... I am disappointed that the NRA has decided to put its own interests ahead of the interests of gun owners. Fortunately, many other gun rights groups rightly oppose H R 822."


Please call your Senator at (202) 224-3121 and tell them you want to keep the government’s hands off your permit and that you oppose federal intrusion into the concealed weapons permit process.

Thank you for taking action to keep the federal government out of the concealed firearms permit system.

So this bill is died?

No. All that bullshit was tossed out ;p.   It's already passed and now we wait for the Senate battle.

Additionally, one must ask themselves, other than suing the post office, NAGR and GOA have done exactly... what?

Quote from: bass monkey on November 14, 2011, 05:22:21 PM

Do you think that the passing of this bill will help the Hawaii cause?


Maybe everyone here is a little kid at heart and the, "if there doing it we can too" mentality will ensue.  Yeah right.
What do you guys think though?

Oh i also emailed in.  Couldnt hurt, or at least i hope not

I don't think this will help Hawaii.  Until Hawaii gets sued and is forced to go to a shall carry mentality nothing will change.

Wouldnt this be a loophole for those Hawaii residents with non-resident permits in other states, allowing them to carry at home under a different card?

it would work for Hawaii citizens if they became not-Hawaii citizens and they change their residence elsewhere, but still live here. Whether they carry a non-resident permit is not considered. You can only get a ccp in your home state if your home state allows you to. But, you can get a non-resident permit, and it will be valid anywhere else in the nation (other than your home state) when traveling, that has ccp/ccw laws in their books.